Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Who has caused climate change? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Cause of climate change
    Man
    25.55%
    Nature
    8.03%
    Both
    10.95%
    Both: but man contributes more
    37.23%
    Both: but nature contributes more
    11.68%
    It is too hard to tell
    6.57%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Do I accept the existence of gasses? Yes - I'm a strong believer in the periodic table.

    Apparently water vapour is the biggest influencer of global warming...... I mean climate change as we haven't warmed up anywhere near the original predictions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Both. But i cannot be more specific than that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Again, I wouldn't call a scientific consensus "cherry picked".



    I can't really believe that you're seriously arguing along those lines. How on earth can you seriously claim that there is any link between experts studying Iraq getting it wrong and climate science? Lots of experts incorrectly predicted the winner of the last World Cup. Does that invalidate the findings of climate scientists too?

    Also, whilst I'm sure you're very happy believing your conspiracy theory about funding relating to climate science, you firstly have no evidence to back up that it's the case and secondly you don't seem to understand the entire debate in the first place. There is absolutely no incentive for climate scientists to claim that climate change is happening. It'd be so much more convenient for everyone if they found out it was false. Nobody wants climate change to be the truth, it just is. Would you rather climate scientists tell us "it's all okay" just to appease the public opinion?

    Im merely saying that sometimes experts get it wrong.

    I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm just saying that if you're chasing up funding to investigate a problem, then you'll magnify the problem to keep the funding going.


    I'd rather scientists tell me the truth which is we think this, but can't be sure so we'll carry on studying it rather than forecasting doom and gloom and it never materialising.


    i got told last year that we were in fir a drought and it was wet.

    i got told the wet weather in New York was a normal tropical storm and then it became a superstore ignoring the fact that the flooding happened at high tide.

    i got told that 3 dead polar bears spotted in a plane 3000m above them was due to global warning without checking out the bodies.

    and scientists in the 60s were saying we were heading for an ice age.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't think the climate is especially chaotic, no. Even if man wasn't around driving cars and burning coal I'd expect weather patterns to be more or less the same as they are now. The universe is a hostile place, you cannot expect sunshine every day with the occasional bout of rain to help keep the crops watered. I think environmentalists have set the climate bar unrealistically high in order to create a panic which they can then profit from.

    I sat in a lecture the other day and there was light drizzle.

    According to the lecturer it was down to global warning.

    i pointed out drizzle in the uk was quite normal in march. It's what we're known for.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Im merely saying that sometimes experts get it wrong.

    I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm just saying that if you're chasing up funding to investigate a problem, then you'll magnify the problem to keep the funding going.


    I'd rather scientists tell me the truth which is we think this, but can't be sure so we'll carry on studying it rather than forecasting doom and gloom and it never materialising.


    i got told last year that we were in fir a drought and it was wet.

    i got told the wet weather in New York was a normal tropical storm and then it became a superstore ignoring the fact that the flooding happened at high tide.

    i got told that 3 dead polar bears spotted in a plane 3000m above them was due to global warning without checking out the bodies.

    and scientists in the 60s were saying we were heading for an ice age.
    Of course experts sometimes get it wrong. However, there's a difference between a single expert making a mistake and the global scientific community making a mistake. Thousands upon thousands of climate scientists would not put their personal reputations on the line for the sake of something that might not be true.

    Those 4 statements you made at the end are, as I've previously said, either inaccurate or cherry picking. I can't judge the drought situation since I don't know where you live. However, in the UK there was a drought and it was wet at the same time. This is due to the definitions of droughts in the UK, which depend on the levels of national water reservoirs (which where depleted, despite the rain). Whoever said that 3 dead polar bears died due to climate change is clearly not an academic since no credible scientist would be stupid enough to attribute it to climate change since it's impossible to know. Finally, I highly doubt that scientists were saying we were heading for an ice age in the 60s since the vast majority knew that we were coming out of an ice age.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    You are seriously overestimating the importance of the economy. The economy has an undeniable importance in human society, I'm definitely not saying it's unimportant. However, the economy is highly responsive and functions in the short term. The economy can recover from damage extremely quickly (when I say quickly, I mean in the scale of years or decades which in the greater schemes of events is quick).

    The planet can do no such thing. Damage we do to the planet now is more or less permanent for our sakes. Not only are we hugely damaging our biosphere, the longer we carry on as we are at the moment, the more we amplify the issue. Climate change follows a positive feedback change. Melting icecaps reduces the earth's albedo, which in turn increases the amount of energy absorbed, which in turn melts more icecaps and accelerates the rate of climate change.
    I would say you are greatly underestimating the economy and the improvements economic growth can bring to people's lives. The economy grows exponentially; suppressing economic growth (which is necessary if we're using something other than hydrocarbons to grow third world economies) would kill far more people than climate change. Additionally, if the economy is allowed to grow to its full potential we will have more resources to mitigate the effects of climate change.

    You're absolutely right that we should start replacing fossil fuel driven power stations with nuclear. However, you're wrong saying that economic policy is more important than the environment. We do not own this planet. Corporations do not own this planet. I'm assuming you know about economics, so you'll know what the word externalisation is. Even if you (are silly enough to) doubt the environmental impacts of it, it's completely morally wrong. Pollution isn't just an environmental issue, it's a political issue too. Wealthy, power-lusting corporations should not be allowed to externalise their costs onto the rest of the planet, forcing others to bear the cost of their profits.
    But you make it out as if the wealthiest benefit from hydrocarbons when that isn't the case; it is the poorest people in the poorest countries who benefit the most from cheap energy. Are you going to tax some poor farmers for burning clean natural gas instead of wood? The atmosphere isn't owned by anyone and obviously governments should consider whether to impose tax on otherwise externalized costs but in this case I see pretty much the entire species using fossil fuels.

    $120 billion may just be 0.2% of our global GDP, but that doesn't mean it's insignificant. Furthermore, it is just the tip of the iceberg. The majority of the world's cities are by the coast, so anti-flooding measures in the future are going to add billions upon billions to this figure, in addition to all of the lost profit as a result of lost arable land, etc. Climate change isn't a cheap issue to solve, but to claim that we are wasting money on it at the moment in insane. We are investing next to nothing in mitigating or preventing climate change. BP spent more on its logo than it spends on researching renewable technologies. The view that it is economically sustainable in the long term to prevent climate change isn't just an environmentalist's one, it's that of a sustainable and long-term thinking economist.
    But if you cut world economic growth by 0.2% then immediately you've lost any economic benefit from preventing climate change. And as economic growth is exponential things like flood defenses would represent a smaller and smaller portion of GDP anyway, whereas if growth is suppressed then the portion of production they consume would take longer to diminish.

    As for renewables; they are not economically efficient because most of them (excepting hydroelectric) are either intermittent (like solar and wind) or very expensive (like geothermal). Nuclear energy is the way forward for the west - whether with fission or fusion - and cooperation with developing countries on that issue (in order to address fears of weapons proliferation) would be the best way to allow their economies to grow without releasing as much CO2.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I sat in a lecture the other day and there was light drizzle.

    According to the lecturer it was down to global warning.

    i pointed out drizzle in the uk was quite normal in march. It's what we're known for.
    It reminds me of those deeply religious people who believe everything around us proves the existence of God.

    Drought? It must be climate change!

    Flooding? Climate change!

    Too hot? Climate change!

    Too cold? Climate change!

    It's no wonder they're so confident in their predictions when the parameters have been set so wide.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Of course experts sometimes get it wrong. However, there's a difference between a single expert making a mistake and the global scientific community making a mistake. Thousands upon thousands of climate scientists would not put their personal reputations on the line for the sake of something that might not be true.

    Those 4 statements you made at the end are, as I've previously said, either inaccurate or cherry picking. I can't judge the drought situation since I don't know where you live. However, in the UK there was a drought and it was wet at the same time. This is due to the definitions of droughts in the UK, which depend on the levels of national water reservoirs (which where depleted, despite the rain). Whoever said that 3 dead polar bears died due to climate change is clearly not an academic since no credible scientist would be stupid enough to attribute it to climate change since it's impossible to know. Finally, I highly doubt that scientists were saying we were heading for an ice age in the 60s since the vast majority knew that we were coming out of an ice age.


    You've said thousand upon thousand climate scientists.

    we never used to have thousand upon thousands if climate scientists until there was funding. I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy, but there might be a bit of herd mentality going on.


    have you watched this? There's scientists in it.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ


    scientists have always disagreed. What worries me though this time is the vitrole that is espoused by one side if questioned.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    It reminds me of those deeply religious people who believe everything around us proves the existence of God.

    Drought? It must be climate change!

    Flooding? Climate change!

    Too hot? Climate change!

    Too cold? Climate change!

    It's no wonder they're so confident in their predictions when the parameters have been set so wide.


    Good point. And if they get it wrong.....climate change.

    I'm old fashioned though. I got taught global warming so I'm sticking to global warming
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Do I accept the existence of gasses? Yes - I'm a strong believer in the periodic table.
    Right, that's close to what I asked but not quite. Do you accept the greenhouse effect?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nick100)
    I would say you are greatly underestimating the economy and the improvements economic growth can bring to people's lives. The economy grows exponentially; suppressing economic growth (which is necessary if we're using something other than hydrocarbons to grow third world economies) would kill far more people than climate change. Additionally, if the economy is allowed to grow to its full potential we will have more resources to mitigate the effects of climate change.

    But you make it out as if the wealthiest benefit from hydrocarbons when that isn't the case; it is the poorest people in the poorest countries who benefit the most from cheap energy. Are you going to tax some poor farmers for burning clean natural gas instead of wood? The atmosphere isn't owned by anyone and obviously governments should consider whether to impose tax on otherwise externalized costs but in this case I see pretty much the entire species using fossil fuels.

    But if you cut world economic growth by 0.2% then immediately you've lost any economic benefit from preventing climate change. And as economic growth is exponential things like flood defenses would represent a smaller and smaller portion of GDP anyway, whereas if growth is suppressed then the portion of production they consume would take longer to diminish.

    As for renewables; they are not economically efficient because most of them (excepting hydroelectric) are either intermittent (like solar and wind) or very expensive (like geothermal). Nuclear energy is the way forward for the west - whether with fission or fusion - and cooperation with developing countries on that issue (in order to address fears of weapons proliferation) would be the best way to allow their economies to grow without releasing as much CO2.
    I find it slightly incredulous how you claim to know so much about economics yet you can't grasp the simple concept that infinite exponential economic growth is impossible. I cannot be bothered to explain primary school mathematics here, but if you genuinely cannot understand the issue watch this; you will not regret it and it does a better job at explaining things than I can. Secondly, whilst I wildly refute your claim that hindering economic growth would kill more people than climate change, this in itself isn't necessarily an issue per se since we have too many people on the planet anyway, as per several experts such as Sir David Attenborough.

    Your claim that the wealthy do not profit from fossil fuels is the most ridiculous mistake you could make. 7 out of the top 10 largest companies by profit are in the oil and gas industry. ExxonMobil had a revenue of $482 billion last year.

    Also, 'clean natural gas' is an Oxymoron. Natural gas is not clean. It gives out less CO2 than coal and oil, but it is not a clean fossil fuel by any means. Also, to claim that renewables are not economically efficient is also nonsense. Ultimately, we are going to have to go 100% renewable. We live on a planet with finite resources and eventually, fissionable isotopes are going to run out. Of course, this isn't going to happen for hundreds, probably thousands of years, but it is the future. Until then, nuclear is our best option but it is incredibly stupid to only use one type of energy. No energy specialist would claim such a thing. Renewables are not the short-term solution, but to ignore them is suicide.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    Right, that's close to what I asked but not quite. Do you accept the greenhouse effect?
    Well everything is a green house has. Did I tell you water vapours a greenhouse gas as well. So's methane. Better start culling people as their farts are having an impact on the environment.
    Dont fart to save the planet. But I bet you don't as you're so uptight as it is.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    have you watched this? There's scientists in it.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ
    You cannot be serious.



    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e94_1246239762
    http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/...ndle_debunked/

    That video is a blatant misinformation campaign, it's factually incorrect.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I find it slightly incredulous how you claim to know so much about economics yet you can't grasp the simple concept that infinite exponential economic growth is impossible. I cannot be bothered to explain primary school mathematics here, but if you genuinely cannot understand the issue watch this; you will not regret it and it does a better job at explaining things than I can. Secondly, whilst I wildly refute your claim that hindering economic growth would kill more people than climate change, this in itself isn't necessarily an issue per se since we have too many people on the planet anyway, as per several experts such as Sir David Attenborough.

    Your claim that the wealthy do not profit from fossil fuels is the most ridiculous mistake you could make. 7 out of the top 10 largest companies by profit are in the oil and gas industry. ExxonMobil had a revenue of $482 billion last year.

    Also, 'clean natural gas' is an Oxymoron. Natural gas is not clean. It gives out less CO2 than coal and oil, but it is not a clean fossil fuel by any means. Also, to claim that renewables are not economically efficient is also nonsense. Ultimately, we are going to have to go 100% renewable. We live on a planet with finite resources and eventually, fissionable isotopes are going to run out. Of course, this isn't going to happen for hundreds, probably thousands of years, but it is the future. Until then, nuclear is our best option but it is incredibly stupid to only use one type of energy. No energy specialist would claim such a thing. Renewables are not the short-term solution, but to ignore them is suicide.

    So lets get this right. Organisations that have enough power to make countries go to war have allowed this global warming scare to ferment and been unable to stop it?

    actually renewables have a part to play. But as once stated before its people like you who also protest about nuclear.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Closest answer I feel is "both, but man contributes more," if we are to assume we're talking about the modern day. Nature has been responsible for far greater degrees of climate change, but never so quickly as we have.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You've said thousand upon thousand climate scientists.

    we never used to have thousand upon thousands if climate scientists until there was funding. I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy, but there might be a bit of herd mentality going on.


    have you watched this? There's scientists in it.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ


    scientists have always disagreed. What worries me though this time is the vitrole that is espoused by one side if questioned.
    I'm clearly not going to watch the entire 1 hour documentary, although I can imagine what it contains because I saw a similar documentary before. If there are any specific moments you want me to watch, link me to points. However, you make the classic denialist mistake of using the argument that "scientists doubt climate change". The label "scientist" doesn't grant someone an instant god status. Science is a huge subject, and someone who specialises in one field will obviously not specialise in another. A climate scientist would obviously not perform open heart surgery, and I'd hope a surgeon wouldn't try to assume the role of a climate scientist.

    So what?
    Seriously.

    Why does it matter in the slightest if a cardiologist, a fluid dynamicist or a biologist doesn't "believe" the claims of global warming? How can you possibly believe that the opinions of a few sparse scientists who don't specialise in climate science are more well informed than the scientific community that studies it as a career?

    Look at this graph.

    You cannot seriously claim that the opinions of a few indivudal scientists invalidate the opinions of the entire global community of scientists who are experts in the field of climate science, who are prepared to stake their entire professional reputation on their findings.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Well everything is a green house has. Did I tell you water vapours a greenhouse gas as well. So's methane. Better start culling people as their farts are having an impact on the environment.
    Dont fart to save the planet. But I bet you don't as you're so uptight as it is.
    Right, ok, that will do. We're emitting a huge amount of these 'greenhouse' gasses, far more than volcanoes, which indicates we must be having an impact on the environment. Water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas, which amplifies the temperature increase caused by other feedback loops such as CO2.

    That's nice.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    You cannot be serious.



    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e94_1246239762
    http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/...ndle_debunked/

    That video is a blatant misinformation campaign, it's factually incorrect.


    As we're polar bears dieing due to global warming being incorrect but it didnt stop people like you whoring it around.

    you need to understand that people like yourself don't help your cause. You're annoying and people just shut down when you speak.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I'm clearly not going to watch the entire 1 hour documentary, although I can imagine what it contains because I saw a similar documentary before. If there are any specific moments you want me to watch, link me to points. However, you make the classic denialist mistake of using the argument that "scientists doubt climate change". The label "scientist" doesn't grant someone an instant god status. Science is a huge subject, and someone who specialises in one field will obviously not specialise in another. A climate scientist would obviously not perform open heart surgery, and I'd hope a surgeon wouldn't try to assume the role of a climate scientist.

    So what?
    Seriously.

    Why does it matter in the slightest if a cardiologist, a fluid dynamicist or a biologist doesn't "believe" the claims of global warming? How can you possibly believe that the opinions of a few sparse scientists who don't specialise in climate science are more well informed than the scientific community that studies it as a career?

    Look at this graph.

    You cannot seriously claim that the opinions of a few indivudal scientists invalidate the opinions of the entire global community of scientists who are experts in the field of climate science, who are prepared to stake their entire professional reputation on their findings.

    Nice graph. All funded climatologists though. They're hardly going to say they don't believe it though are they.

    I'd recommend you take an hour to watch that documentary. You can have a herbal infusion whilst you watch it.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So lets get this right. Organisations that have enough power to make countries go to war have allowed this global warming scare to ferment and been unable to stop it?

    actually renewables have a part to play. But as once stated before its people like you who also protest about nuclear.
    The organisations that I have previously mentioned, the huge MNCs in the energy business, are the organisations that propagated climate change denialism in the first place. Corporations like BP and Exxon actually pay scientists to spread lies/doubt about the climate change issue to protect their business.

    And I'm not going to repeat this again, I'm not anti-nuclear! When did I say I was anti-nuclear? You're just fabricating things now. And what do you mean by "people like you"?
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.